The FCC announced it was doing away with dozens of rules today, including the Fairness Doctrine–perhaps one of the most widely misunderstood media policy concepts of all time. As the Hollywood Reporter put it:
Bound to get the most attention though is ditching the Fairness Doctrine, an idea that was meant to force radio broadcasters into offering as much left wing political content as they offer right wing commentary.
This is the Fairness Doctrine as imagined by right-wing talk show hosts as a way to scare listeners. Rush Limbaugh called it the “Hush Rush Bill,” and claimed that it would force radio stations to air liberal programs or face FCC sanctions. That was nonsense.
As FAIR’s Steve Rendall explained in a fantastic piece in Extra! (1-2/05), the Fairness Doctrine did not mandate anything resembling equal time (a misconception advanced by an array of conservatives, but also by liberals hoping to force ideological balance on the nation’s airwaves).
He wrote:
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.
Rendall went on to describe the upside of the Fairness Doctrine:
Indeed, when it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate. For instance, it prevented stations from allowing only one side to be heard on ballot measures. Over the years, it had been supported by grassroots groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and the right-wing Accuracy In Media.
Typically, when an individual or citizens group complained to a station about imbalance, the station would set aside time for an on-air response for the omitted perspective: “Reasonable opportunity for presentation of opposing points of view,” was the relevant phrase. If a station disagreed with the complaint, feeling that an adequate range of views had already been presented, the decision would be appealed to the FCC for a judgment.
According to Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of Media Access Project, scheduling response time was based on time of day, frequency and duration of the original perspective. “If one view received a lot of coverage in primetime,” Schwartzman told Extra!, “then at least some response time would have to be in primetime. Likewise if one side received many short spots or really long spots.” But the remedy did not amount to equal time; the ratio of airtime between the original perspective and the response ‘could be as much as five to one,’ said Schwartzman.
As a guarantor of balance and inclusion, the Fairness Doctrine was no panacea. It was somewhat vague, and depended on the vigilance of listeners and viewers to notice imbalance. But its value, beyond the occasional remedies it provided, was in its codification of the principle that broadcasters had a responsibility to present a range of views on controversial issues.
Hmm. I thought they had done away with that doctrine years ago….
The Fairness Doctrine would be a good thing right about now. I remember the media back when things tried at least a little bit to be fair and balanced … really, and it was better.
As a former operator of two(2) full power TV stations and a Regional FM Station in the Boston Market, the demise of the Fairness Doctrine eroded news and journalism across America. Steve Rendall was right-on about the Fairness Doctrine: â┚¬Ã…“Reasonable opportunity for presentation of opposing points of view.” Also, while it was “Never Equal Time,” it set an important goal for station owners and operators to present both sides of a local issue.
Neal Cortell, TV Executive Producer
“THE MEDIA, The Future of the News”
Let’s write a real “Fairness Doctrine”. What would it look like?
Perhaps the “Truth Doctrine” should be adopted where various monologers could spew out their versions of the truth about an issue without regard for meaningful dialog.
The doctrine would of effected content -period!Content being freedom of speech.Cut that however you would like.Government has no place in that.A religious station has a right to spout their beliefs without any time at all given to atheists.Right wing pundits need not give any time to libs, and visa versa.You don’t agree with a viewpoint- change the channel.Who in the end would be the judge of fair and balanced?Obama…..Ann Coulter…..Rom Emanuel…..Rush????The only Judge we need is free choice!
To Micheale e – The air waves are not owned by any one corporation, they lease the use from the government; although the Rupert Murdochs of the world would love to change that and the past 20 years has made major inroads into that fact. So the only rights they have are the ones assigned by the leasing entity – the fcc. Currently the board of the FCC is still loaded with Bush appointees – so we are getting the views of the ultra conservatives.
Back in the day when there was not faux news stations all over the map we were more likely to hear something closer to the truth on most matters. Now that almost all stations are owned by large corporations – there is very few opportunities for views counter to what mega corps want you to hear to reach the airwaves.
Michael e, and Sherry t, should stop drinking the “cool ade” fed to them by corporate media. They ignore the fact that the government “air lords” that provide the leases for the use of our air waves also own the politician.
It amazes me that purveyors of unfair, racists, onesided, factless,subliminal, information would argue that the Fairness Doctrine is unfair.
When these complaintants, Limbaugh, Hannity, and their kind get sick why not have the doctors give them misinformation or blatant lies regarding their conditions?
Why isn’t the THRUTH given in the first place?
Why are millions of socalled Christian Godly people following the current evil onesided media anyway?
San Diego had a progressive talk radio station for a couple of years, and a devoted bunch of listeners. Our supposedly conservative city became blue; more registered Democrats than Republicans. Clearchannel decided in November 2007 to switch to a sports format, claiming low ratings for KLSD’s progressive talk. The sports format has ratings that are less than half what the station had before, yet strangely the “free market” has not realized it made a financial blunder and restored progressive talk. Our “free” choices are conservative talk, hate radio, sports, music, Christian programming, more right-wing noise, or our PBS station. The public airwaves are not serving the public, and there is nothing free about the market or my limited choices.
By fairness we don’t mean socialism or equal sharing. By fairness we mean everyone is given an equal chance, and not just once but all the time. This cannot be achieved by the equality of giving different opinions on the air the same time to broardcast, it must be also by giving workers an equal chance to earn. Land owners stop this chance from applying by holding useful land out of use and speculating in its growing value. This is not fair because the cost of using the land that is available is raised and with it the price of the produced goods. This reduces demand and results in unemployment, poverty and homelessness.
Thats right Austrialians, by allowing land monopolists to speculate in Man’s natural birthright, the land, you are stopping progress! This can be avoided by shifting the tax burden off earnings, purchases and capital gains and onto land values.
TAX LAND NOT PEOPLE; TAX TAKINGS NOT MAKINGS!
Its time the corporate networks paid the people for the use of our airwaves. They profit from there use and don’t pay anything for them.
The best way for the people to benefit from their airwaves is to remove the influence of sponsors, foreign & USA government on the content of broadcasts of news & current events. The FCC must require & Congress must enact legislation requiring the airing of news & current events as a public service.
To ensure the public can tell the difference between real news & spin all discussion programs. political advertising & unverified news must be labelled “commentary, opinion, not based on fact” throughout the program & announced at the beginning & end of every commercial breaks.
A new “Fairness Doctrine” also needs to be enacted that allows the equal time for the rebuttal of lies, misrepresentation of fact, &/or historical revisions that were presented as fact, this includes political campaign ads, talk radio content without charge.
We can dream about freedom & truth from the press but until private money is removed from government it will never happen. Unfortunately, both ruling parties accept large campaign donations and Congress has created loopholes in the rule against taking gift allowing special treatment for some PAC’s. Like the 20% (~87 Congressmen from both parties but mostly GOP’s)of the House who went on an all expense paid trip to Israel during this month’s Congressional recess on AIPAC. Apparent legislation governing bribing Congress doesn’t apply to AIPAC.
We must demand that Congress or a newly elected independent Congress, first duty be to enact legislation that publically fund all political campaigns with absolutely no private funds allowed. All current campaign funds (individual & party) will be nationalized & that plus PAC registration & access fees used to for funding. If the regulation regarding the airing of news & current events & a new Fairness Doctrine are enacted advertizing cost will be significantly reduced. Also the loopholes for Congressional gift must be closed & new disclosure legislation enacted preventing any legislator from voting or sponsoring legislation that would benefit corporation they have worked or been a consultant.
Its time to end the centuries of feudalism and for the people of the USA to show the world what a true democracy is. We will have a long way to travel to achieve it, but not as far as many
Carolyn
Those who advertise ,those who own,those who monitor(FCC)the airwaves have no power at all…..as long as you have a good right hand that can CHANGE THE CHANNEL!!I HATE rap music.I am sad it is so big.I CHANGE THE CHANNEL.
Trouble is, micheal, your people now own just about every channel. It’s hard to find any straight up, non-spun news anymore, anywhere. What Carolyn is arguing for is not only reasonable but just. If you can neither see that nor respond intelligently to it, why are you still talking? Don’t you have a choir you can preach to somewhere?
Doug what channels are you talking about?I listen to music a lot on the radio.Every station interjects political commentary.Believe me it aint conservitive.Cnn…Msnbc …cbs…nbc….abc…and just about every Tv show going has its own flow and again…not conservative.Who is huge on the radio?Howard stern …Rush(quite a difference there).I would say the gross majority of print media is still liberal.Tv liberal.Movies liberal.Music liberal.Education system liberal.Radio is probably the only thing evening out.And yes people are starting to accept that this Obama revolution is crap ,and the conservatives are talking a lot of sense.And the market is responding.As far as government interfering in any way shape or form to freedom of speech thats a big no partner.You say money interferes ,so why not government?Lousy arguement.
P.s article coming out this week called “IS PERRY DUMB”Boy strange thing for conservative owned media to write about.Try to find a similar article about biden or pelosi or obama.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the Fairness Doctrine only covers programming broadcast over the public airwaves, which, theoretically, we the people own…It doesn’t include cable television, print, or satellite radio.
Really, micheal? Do you even read this blog? I’ve met people before who are stubborn about their ignorance, and unwilling to think about things, but I’ve never come across anyone quite so vain about what they don’t know as you.
Reader…….Public airways?That we the people theoretically own?Not by a long shot.See how the Supreme court views that twist.We may own the roads…..we don’t own the cars.
Doug don’t you think that almost every word written by these Fair articles, and commented on by these bloggers, are easily discernible to anyone as liberal swill?When a liberal has the little lightbulb go off over his sleepy head and declares a new tax(of course under some guise)you seem bewildered that we catch your little act before you even put it to paper.Look Doug we have your number.Ignorance?Seems to be what you call anyone who does not buy into liberal lies.
I think you had better reread the article.Understand us.Any government meddling in content of radio shows is not acceptable to us.
Broadcast channels are “scarce” (that is, there are not enough available channels for all of those who wish to broadcast), and the electromagnetic spectrum has been deemed, since the beginning of broadcast regulation, to be a publicly owned natural resource. This “scarce public resource” rationale formed the foundation on which broadcast regulation was based.
Good lord i hope Lady ga ga listens to you……and quits!
That response makes no sense. Lady GaGa gets the vast majority of her coverage via cable tv, the internet, print articles and her sales of cds, downloads and concert tickets, none of which are covered by the FCC.
“article coming out this week called “IS PERRY DUMB”Boy strange thing for conservative owned media to write about.Try to find a similar article about biden or pelosi or obama.”
Try to find a need for such an article (with the possible exception of Biden, who actually seems maladroit more than dumb). But an article could be written about the elegant refinement of your posts, michael e.
However, a “WAS CYNTHIA MCKINNEY RIGHT?” article in right-wing or even so-called liberal media would be a rare bired.
I meant rare bird, of course.
The perfectly predictable answer to a story in corporate media asking “Is Perry Dumb?” is no, of course not: “Perry may not be a wonk, but that doesn’t mean he’s a rube â┚¬” a costly mistake many of his foes have made.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62214_Page2.html#ixzz1XXaPFPGn